The SciPhi Show2: Atheists debunk the Moral Argument for God

[@cooksoni.a]

This is such a great show, im excited for more episodes

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@ellyam991]

This is easily one of my favorite videos ever. I hate having debates where people say atheists have no way to ground morality, despite the huge amount of atheists who are also moral realists like you showed on the PhilSurvey

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks so much for your comment

[@jackkrell4238]

Moral realism is nonsensical though. Objective morality is impossible on both a theistic and naturalistic reality.

[@daniellinford9643]

@@jackkrell4238 Why? In any case, theism and naturalism are not the only two options.

[@neopolitansokare7899]

The basic problem, as WLC phrases his argument at his most sanctimonious, is that it contains a huge assumption at the beginning that a non-theist can never get on board with. "If X did not exist, then Y would not exist", for WLC's preferred values of X and Y. We could replace X with whatever we like, with just as much justification as WLC brings to the argument and the argument remains just as persuasive. Try it with "the Grand Pixie" or "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" or even non sequiturs like "puppies". We could also replace Y with whatever we liked, and arrive at truly stupid arguments (mine involved Kim Kardashian when I had no clue who or what she was - "If God did not exist, then Kim Kardashian would not exist, etc"). WLC (along with pretty much every apologist) has a hidden/poorly state premise. If worded properly his argument would be something like "If God did not exist, then the moral values and duties as laid down by God would not exist; the moral values and duties as laid down by God do exist; therefore God exists" - which boils down to the key argument made by all apologists once all the nonsense is stripped away: If God, then God; God: therefore God. Followed by violent tipping over of the chessboard and wild fisting of the air during a presumed victory lap.

[@Petticca]

This, exactly this. It is utterly redundant and frankly, bizarre to select some arbitrary thing and claim, well _that_ can only be explained by this god concept, when the entirety of everything is claimed to only be even a possibility if there is a creator god, who decides to create it. I've thought the same thing, with coming up with silly arguments, they may as well come up with the argument from olfactory sense perception uniformity, 'Newly grown oranges smell exactly like oranges that grew years before!' But why? There is no reason under naturalism that the genetic code for scent should be so consistent, after all, the oranges have many subtle differences in shape, size, color; the odds that the scent would be a perfect and predictable delicious smell of oranges, every time, are simply too high to be chance. Atheists can't explain that on their worldview'

[@andystewart9701]

Great discussion! I am excited about this series!

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@clubadv]

I can't believe your channel isn't more popular but I did subscribe

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@0The0Web0]

Ooh another one with thost two great guests 👌 enjoyed a lot, thanks!

[@PhilHalper1]

your welcome

[@ancientfoglet9600]

This is slowly becoming my favorite Podcast. There is great synergy between you three with Alex being really good explaining the stuff for us stupid people, Dan expanding the topic with depth, details and history and then Phil kicks in with some fact checking.

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks so much

[@FloydFp]

Alex Malpass vs. William Lane Craig morality debate...make it happen!

[@samsimpson565]

Craig doesn’t want anything to do with Alex again, especially on morality, as he knows he’d be in big trouble. Alex is a proper philosophy who’d tie Craig up in nots in an instance. When Craig faced a proper philosopher on this topic before in a debate (Shelly Kagan), he was pulverised and it was one of his worst debate performances. I also think since the backlash Craig has received from his stance on the Israelites slaughtering the Canaanites in the OT, he won’t want to touch this topic again in a debate format.

[@EarnestApostate]

I always found the moral argument annoying because I found both premises unsound, but also the implication. Thanks for this discussion, I quite enjoyed it! You managed to snag a sub in one viewing.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks, have you seen the other content on the channel? i think you will like it

[@Cat_Woods]

Reminds me of my tongue-in-cheek disproof of God: God is defined as being omniscient, therefore observing everything. If so, there would be no unobserved photons, and therefore light would always behave as particles, never as waves. But there is light that behaves as waves. Therefore there is no omniscient being. Not entirely serious, but I thought it was funny at the time (in my 20s). 😄 It was Plato who persuaded me in college there was some kind of objectivity to ethics. (I'm not sure that this is absolutely objective, just that it can have more stable, objective criteria rather than completely arbitrary idiosyncratic criteria.) But that was also the beginning of my departure from Christianity, because those somewhat objective criteria diverged from the morals instilled by my religion. I experienced a divergence of my conscience into my religious conscience and my conscience of actual good and bad. Eventually the latter conscience won, mostly because by those somewhat objective standards, the religion was abhorrent.

[@MBarberfan4life]

The first premise of Craig's argument is really strange. As was said in the video, the issue of secular morality has been defended for thousands of years. If you have read an ethical theory book or taken a course, you will realize how strange Craig's first premise really is. And apart from the fact that Craig's expertise isn't in ethics, he hasn't really offered an argument for the truth of that premise. It would be like saying that 1+1 would not equal 2 if God doesn't exist. It's nonsense

[@PhilHalper1]

Yeah i wonder if the next argument might be toothpaste doesn't exist if god doesn't exist, toothpaste does exist so God exists

[@christaylor6574]

@@PhilHalper1 Funnily enough I have the same parody argument using pornography instead of toothpaste. The structure of the argument means that you can essentially just swap out 'objectively morality' for anything (eg: porn) and it becomes evidence for God's existence.

[@Nightscape_]

I remember becoming a militant atheist after escaping religious indoctrination in university; then I had dozens of atheist hiring managers say I could not have a job, while a Christian manager allowed me to use my Masters, escape the veterans homeless shelter, and join the middle class. Now I don't know what to think. The atheists acted neoliberal while the religious acted egalitarian. Who is more moral?

[@PhilHalper1]

im ot sure the relevance,?

[@daniellinford9643]

We need to distinguish two questions. First, whether God exists. Second, whether some group of people is more moral than another. I have no idea which group -- Christians or atheists -- includes more moral people. You appear to think that if someone is a neoliberal, then they are less moral than they would otherwise be. I'm not a neoliberal either. I don't know what country you are from, but, at least in the US, Christians tend to be neoliberals, that is, members of the Republican Party. In any case, whichever group contains more moral people is unrelated -- as far as I can tell -- to questions about whether God exists. It could be that Christians tend to be better people even though Christianity is false; alternatively, it could be that atheists tend to be better people even if God exists.

[@ThePresident001]

Hugely appreciate all 3 of you of course, but Alex in particular is always a pleasure to listen to 👍

[@wmde]

YEEEEEEEEEEEES ALEX MALPASS!!!!!!!!!! Nicely done Phil!

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks

[@brianmulholland2467]

IMHO, objective morality can be grounded in reasoned self-interest. While we are all self-interested, we cannot survive or thrive on our own. We achieve more and live better when we cooperate and socialize. This requires trust. If we behave immorally with respect to others around us, they will be less inclined to cooperate and socialize with us. Certainly there are genetic inclinations towards some of this as well, but charity is beneficial to me even if I lack empathy because it improves my social standing to be seen giving, it creates gratitude from the recipient that could benefit me, and so forth. Further, that Christians want to bring up morality when their book openly describes that god committing genocide, torturing people like Job and Abraham with cruel tricks, condemning people to infinite punishment for failing to correctly guess which faith to follow or whether he exists at all when he refuses to make it clear, allow slavery, and on and on...if they want to claim the bible is true then god is not moral.

[@tonydarcy1606]

I know nothing of philosophy , but I think that killing witches is wrong. (Exodus 22.18 )

[@PhilHalper1]

seems like a reasonable conclusion to me

[@Yossarian.]

Doesn't that depend on whether or not it's a real witch?

[@PhilHalper1]

@@Yossarian. you can apply this test for that? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmPbnYSXntKmfck

[@Yossarian.]

@skydivephil So, a more accurate statement would be that it's only wrong to kill witches who weigh more than a duck. Ah, but is that an Afican duck or a European duck?

[@PhilHalper1]

@@Yossarian. you have to weigh the same as a duck to be a wtich , thats how we can tell if someone is a witch

[@svezhiepyatki]

Interesting discussion. Would love for the panel to cover the argument from psychophysical harmony in the future. Thx!

[@PhilHalper1]

noted thanks

[@DarwinsGreatestHits]

It seems to me the psychophysical harmony problem applies just as well to God.

[@Efn5Q8Vyxn]

Nathan Ormond from Digital Gnosis and his guest James Fodor have a video discussing the argument from psychophysical harmony. Link below: kzbin.infoIJW0c74lhVY

[@frankpulmanns6685]

In my mind the argument from morality is either circular or just doesn't work, as it requires the theist to either demonstrate what the argument endeavours to establish or prove a negative. The biggest problem lies with the first premise: Without god you can't have objective morality. In other words, sources of morality other than God are impossible. Ok, how do you know that? In order to demonstrate that premise is true you need to prove that all other possible sources are impossible. That means proving a negative. The only way I know of to remotely do that is to positively prove a mutually exclusive proposition (in this case, that God exists, is the source of morality, *and* is incompatible with all other possible morality sources). Which means that in order to even begin to establish the first premise, the theist needs to prove the argument's conclusion. Sounds like a neat little circle to me. And that's granting for the sake of argument that objective morality does in fact exist, something I'm not convinced of.

[@RefinedQualia]

Are you under the impression that one "cannot prove a negative"?

[@christaylor6574]

WLC's argument is in the form modus tollens, so it can't be circular: if p, then q, not q, therefore not p. ie: p = God doesn't exist; q = objective moral values don't exist if God doesn't exist (p), then objective moral values don't exist (q) There are objective moral values (not q) therefore God exists (not p). As you and the panelists point out - premise 1 is the biggest problem: it's under-motivated. there's a huge history of moral philosophy that grounds objective moral values without God, so there's pretty good undercutting defeater to his first premise ie: these undermine the reason to accept his first premise that only God can ground morality.

[@dr.h8r]

The form of the argument doesn’t necessarily preclude circularity, for example; if p then p, p, therefore p. That’s a valid modus ponens argument yet is clearly (premise) circular.

[@frankpulmanns6685]

@@RefinedQualia You can, by positively proving a mutually exclusive proposition. As I already stated. If there's some other way, I'd like to hear it. And then have it applied to premise 1.

[@frankpulmanns6685]

@@christaylor6574 And even if all the other objective moral groundings we've come up with are disproven, that doesn't help the argument. For premise one to work, it must be proven that not just all other moral frameworks that we've come up with don't work, but that it's impossible even in principle for other moral frameworks to exist, including ones we haven't invented yet. And that's before getting to whether morality is, in fact, objective or not.

[@surfin0861]

They are both super smart. I wish he was still in the tidewater area. I would love to audit one of his classes.

[@quantenmoi]

I posted this crude summary of your argument on r/atheism The Moral Argument Against God 1. God is the source and measure of moral values. 2. Something is objective if it exists independently of any mind. 3. God has a mind. 4. Objective moral values do not exist if God exists. 5. Objective moral values do exist. 6. Therefore, God does not exist. Someone said theists will argue that morality comes from God’s nature, not God’s mind. So, I formulated this: The Argument for God's Mindless Nature 1. God's nature is the source of objective moral values. 2. Something is objective if it exists independently of any mind. 3. Therefore, God's nature is mindless. 😂😂😂😂

[@simonodowd2119]

Oooh that seems to have fun implications, like that God's nature is independent from any (including His own) mind.

[@dr.h8r]

Yeah decent point. Sounds like you can generate a couple nifty reductios on this basis, like God is essentially mental yet non-mental generally… also omnipotence, omniscience omnibenevolence, perfect rationality etc are in muddy waters, too.

[@philonew]

To Dan Linford: You observe that people like Craig seem to be ignorant of 2400 years of history of moral philosophy. Your point is that many of the great philosophers in history have formulated moral theories according to which morality is objective, but they have nothing to do with God. First of all, one of those philosophers you mention is Plato. I don’t think Plato is the best example to support your point! For Plato, God is the Good, a transcendent being and locus of morality. Perhaps you should have mentioned Kant whose theory does not rely on God as the paradigm of moral value and duties. Second, even if you take Kant’s moral theory as an example of a God-less moral theory, what does the existence of moral theories that do not rely on the existence of God prove? In your view it proves that morality is objective without God? If this is your argument, it is not a successful argument for the reasons that, regardless of how good a God-less moral theory is, (a) it does nothing to do away with God; and (b), no theory of morality is self-sufficient. Deontological theories presuppose the objectivity of value and duties or, as in the case of Kant’s theory, presuppose the inherent value of rational beings. Teleological theories do not presuppose the objectivity of value and duties; however, they presuppose the objective value of pleasure/happiness/satisfaction of preference. The bottom line is that you cannot do away with the moral argument by simply invoking normative theories. Just like the theory of evolution tells you a lot about the evolution of natural organisms but says nothing about the origin of life itself, normative theories can tell you a great deal about how to determine right from wrong but say nothing about right and wrong itself. I’ll be glad to discuss this with you if you are interested. All the best Dr. C. Alvaro

[@6ygfddgghhbvdx]

If pig can fly then craig can atleast walk, but pig does not fly therefore the craig can not walk.

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

Morality had to exist thousands of years, possibly hundreds of thousands of years before the major religions emerged. Why? The beginnings and development of morality was the only way humans with our powerful brains could get along and survive generation after generation after generation of living in close proximity in our hunter-gatherer groups. No government, no religion, no institutions. It had to emerge bottom-up freely, in response to those stresses and strains of intimate life.

[@Nai61a]

thephilosophical etc: Yes. It must have given evolutionary advantages.

[@wadetisthammer3612]

3:00 to 6:34 - Semantics objection. 30:49 to 31:49 - Objection against self-authentication.

[@maxdoubt5219]

If objective moral values _do_ exist, isn't God's behavior in the bible precisely what such values should teach us to denounce and repudiate?

[@PhilHalper1]

yes exactly

[@athlios7179]

HOLY FUCK, HOLY FUCKING FUCK VIDEO WITH ALEX MALPASS = AUTOMATIC CLICK!!!! (Other videos are obviously great, I’m just an Alex Malpass Stan)

[@PhilHalper1]

Me too

[@dr.h8r]

This

[@DarwinsGreatestHits]

1:11:30 Alex brings up Craig quoting van Inwagen. Craig writes, "Platonism is a metaphysical view which is so extravagant that it makes theism-which itself involves hefty metaphysical commitments!-look modest by comparison …. Given this strange bifurcation of reality into these two causally unconnected domains, it would be much more credible to suppose that one of the categories is empty. But concrete objects are indisputably real and well-understood, in contrast to abstract objects. So, van Inwagen maintains, the presumption should be that abstract objects do not exist. Nominalism of some sort is thus the default position." I find it odd that Craig thinks the metaphysical extravagance of Platonism should make Nominalism the default position, but the "hefty metaphysical commitment" of theism doesn't make atheism the default position. Seems inconsistent to me.

[@ellyam991]

Yeah, it's selective parsimony. Maybe one could argue that theism offers explanatory virtues, but that's beyond the simplicity taken as important for establishing default positions, as theism requires many elements that seem equally extravagant at first glance

[@jackkrell4238]

@@ellyam991 How is theism "explanatory" in any way. It's literally one of the most absurd philosophical positions right behind solipsism.

[@ellyam991]

​@@jackkrell4238 I'm not a theist so take what I'm saying with a huge fistful of salt, but there are arguments that say things like "why is it that math can model the universe with such accuracy?" (WLC discusses that with Oppy for example). The idea is that unless there's a god, there is no explanation for that since abstract mathematical objects have no causal powers. I don't think the argument works, but it's one of the many things a theist could claim as more explanatory power

[@jackkrell4238]

@@ellyam991 I'm skeptical that theists can claim that anything explains their position without resorting to obfuscation, fallacious reasoning, and cognitive biases. In the case of the mathematical argument, I don't think there's much of a problem given that 1. we invented math as a formal language to predict and describe patterns and phenomena within systems of reality( and some abstract models don't represent anything or are disregarded in favor of flawed yet more "elegant" alternatives. String theory is a prime example of such case.) 2. Why would we expect a god( which is already an ill-defined, incomplete, unparsimonious and non-explanatory concept) to either instantiate mathematics or to even care about it at all. After all, how can a disembodied mind( which is most likely impossible by itself) create anything by itself without being limited by or operating through already existent structures? It's almost like math is being reified in the same way that qualities of ethereal beings( which don't exist) are reified. 3. Why wouldn't say the mathematical universe hypothesis or mathematical realism/platonism be a superior metaphysical position if it even was a problem? It contains less assumptions and comparatively fits the data more. Lastly, while I haven't watched the Oppy debate video, he has always made a good point that we are just as much allowed to add assumptions to our position if theists can do it to theirs( e.g. multiverse, universal dispositions, cosmic operational generators,etc.) I don't think these are either real or meaningfully necessary to consider, but it just shows just how much lenience most theists give to their preconceptions about the world around them without applying much scrutiny.

[@tamjammy4461]

Never really thought of Craig as a "quote miner" before. Interesting. On a wider note , I find the whole "alternative to god grounding" for morality difficult, at least partlly because I can't decide if I think morality is subjective or not. So this was interesting. Ta to all.

[@cooksoni.a]

i havent done much research into ethics, but my take on morality is this: morality is not objective, and it only arises out of social interaction. your sense of morality in any given situation depends on how much you can empathize with the other living beings in that situation. this usually depends on how familiar you are with the other person, and i think it occurs naturally with people who you are similar to or feel familiar with. for instance, we can empathize with members of our own culture easily and identify when something immoral has happened to them. when we become more familiar with people of a different culture, we begin to empathize more with their experiences and personhood as if it were our own, and we choose to behave in moral accordance based on that. we can empathize with animals who we are familiar with and recognize immoral treatment of them, like dogs and cats, while not caring as much when it happens to other animals who we dont usually have direct experiences with, like farm animals. once you begin to empathize with the experiences of other living things that are dissimilar to you, then it becomes more difficult to ignore their mistreatment, because your sense of morality with regards to that new group begins to develop. racist people who act immorally to other populations usually don't have a sene of familiarity with them, so their sense of morality never develops in that social relation. this also explains the situation with the rats that you mentioned. so i believe that morality is a social developmental phenomenon. children develop morality through social interaction, and some adults cannot fully develop morality because of disabilities or mental disorders like sociopathy. sociopaths dont develop morality because they can't empathize with other people so their moral development is stunted. many animals cannot develop a sense of morality because many of them are not social creatures by nature, and those that do have sociality do develop a sense of morality with those who they are familiar with and not those who they aren't familiar with, and can't be familiar with because of the limits of animal sociality. but humans are the most aggressively social animal on earth, so it is natural that we generally have the most developed sense of morality. so in conclusion, morality is only a social artifact that can take different forms depending on social conditions, and is not a measure of objective fact

[@ernestmeas9857]

And herein lies the danger...if morality is not universal/objective then everyone decides what goes and what doesn't. Hence the claim for a moral law giver...it is transcendent (cuts across everything and has to be consistent)

[@cooksoni.a]

@@ernestmeas9857 morality not being objective does not imply that everyone decides what goes and what doesnt. like i said, morality is socially determined, and i argued that it is co-developed with empathy. but even if everyone did decide "what goes and what doesn't," i don't see the "danger." if that freaks somebody out and makes them want to believe that there is a transcendent and universally consistent morality, that's kind of irrelevant. social organization and policy is rarely decided upon by morals, its dialectically developed with struggle, negotiation, cooperation, subjugation, etc. morality rarely shows up in broad social policy as a sole determinant. but obviously there's enough overlap in everyone's moral compasses to generate an average for what cultures deem moral.

[@Karakta]

I regret the days this channel was about good science, and not shallow atheist cathechism.

[@PhilHalper1]

w ehave a new science film coming out soon

[@Nai61a]

Karakta: Why? And what is an "atheist cathechism"? For me, the more people there are pointing out the ludicrous nature of belief in "Gods", the better. We need to move on from this childishness.

[@02buddha02]

​@@Nai61a probably because it akin to preaching to the choir

[@Nai61a]

@@02buddha02 A very small choir. And it is not just members of the "choir" who watch/listen to these discussions.

[@PhilHalper1]

sorry comments were disabled somehow , i think i have fixed it now though

[@zerksez9963]

Thanks

[@rembrandt972ify]

No, comments are still disabled. 😝

[@PhilHalper1]

@@rembrandt972ify lol

[@dr.h8r]

If theists define morality as conceptually distinct from yet necessarily dependent on God then they need to defend that necessity. If they think morality isn’t conceptually distinct from God (because it’s reducible to his commands or nature) then they’re just expressing a trivial truth which in this dialectical context is blatant question-begging. Another way of seeing this is if you approach the issue Euthyphro style: either 1. morality (logically) depends on Gods commands/nature or 2. morality is external to & hence (logically) independent from God. If 1 then the proposition boils down to “on atheism you can’t have Gods commands/nature”, which is trivial. If 2 then they’ve conceded the dispute regardless of whether morality is construed realist or anti-realist.

[@CMVMic]

P1. If objective morality is true, then it must be grounded in something that exist P2. The Christian god does not exist P3. Objective morality cannot be grounded in the Christian god

[@ellyam991]

Theism disproved *air horn*

[@CMVMic]

​@@ellyam991haha now all one has to do is prove p2 and we can do that by proving the incoherence or metaphysical impossibility of such a concept

[@ellyam991]

@@CMVMic I can't remember the name of the person, but there's a philosopher that compiled 100+ arguments for atheism. Just claim it's a cumulative case and bam, your argument has won 😎

[@CMVMic]

​@@ellyam991Joe Schmid probably. Majesty of reason.

[@dr.h8r]

Felipe Leon

[@steveg1961]

This isn't relevant to all religious apologists - but it's particularly relevant to Christian apologists (especially fundamentalist/evangelical Christians, whose closely related belief systems fundamentally rely on their religious doctrine of biblical inerrancy). The book of Joshua is the most prominent example of this, but there are also numerous other examples scattered throughout the Bible that demonstrate the same thing: The very premise of "objective morality" based on "God's Word" as "revealed" in the Bible is a self-destructive argument, both because the "morality" of the Bible is so glaringly primitive, barbaric, and parochial. In other words, BECAUSE fundamentalist/evangelical Christian apologists are fundamentally relying on the Bible for their alleged "objective morality," the Bible itself destroys the "objective morality" they're claiming to possess in the first place. They say you have to have a god to have "objective morality" in the first place - but when we look at the Bible that they are literally basing this supposed "objective morality" on in the first place, we see that the Bible itself contradicts this concept of "objective morality." And that's why when this argument is used by fundamentalist/evangelical Christian apologists (or any other Christian apologists relying on the Bible to provide any such supposed "objective morality"), it's a self-destructive argument.

[@DarwinsGreatestHits]

26:44 I no longer think the prior obligations objection to DCT is good. Frederick Choo has a good paper on this.

[@rabbitpirate]

Excellent discussion in an already amazing series. I must say though, the more I hear people talking about morality, the more I lean towards a moral anti-realist position. I think morality is just a label we made up to describe interactions that we view as socially beneficial and those that we don't. I don't really see it having any more existence than that, nor do I see it needing to. That said it seems I disagree with most philosophers here, so clearly I am missing something.

[@Nitroade24]

I'm a little confused by Alex's first argument. He seems to be defining objectivity as simply mind-independence, but some objective facts are mind-dependent, such as "I am perceiving a computer screen" or "mental properties exist". A better definition of objectivity is something more like not being constitutively dependent on the attitudes of minds. However, if we take this definition, a relation between an action and God's nature is still an objective fact, just like the relations of "being north of England" or "dressing like Obama" are objective.

[@christaylor6574]

I think he means that P is true no matter how a person feels about it. eg: flat-earth proponents will argue (like you) that they perceive a flat, horizontal horizon and the sun moving across the sky, so the earth must be flat and the it's the sun that orbits the earth. But the earth is a globe (not flat) and so that's going to be objectively true because the shape of the earth doesn't depend on a person's stance ie: the earth would still be a globe even if everyone were flat-earthers. Moral realists are saying the same thing about moral facts - some moral fact is true and doesn't depend on a person's stance. eg: they'll say torturing babies is still wrong even if everyone thought it was ok.

[@Nitroade24]

@@christaylor6574 I know this but what I am saying is that if the modified divine command theorist identifies goodness with a relation to God's nature (not his attitudes), then facts about relations to God's nature are objective facts, so Alex's premise would be false.

[@daniellinford9643]

@@Nitroade24 Sure. I think that is a good worry about Alex's argument. However, I think Alex's argument can be fixed to address this problem. Perhaps goodness is somehow grounded in God's nature and perhaps this is enough to make goodness objective. But on the version of modified DCT Craig favors, our moral obligations are somehow grounded in God's commands, which presumably reflect God's attitudes. In that case, our moral obligations are not objective, even if goodness is objective.

[@Nitroade24]

@@daniellinford9643 Okay yeah definitely that's a great point. Alex's argument then does work against anyone who holds that moral obligations actually are divine commands. How would you justify the premise "Objective moral obligations exist" to someone who thinks that moral obligations do exist but they're subjective? I guess I can think of two ways, but I'm interested in hearing if there are any more than these: 1. Our moral intuitions tell us that moral obligations are an intrinsic result of the badness of things like murder, not an extrinsic relation. 2. If God has a reason to make a command against something like murder, plausibly the command is superfluous as the reason for God to make the command could just be the reason that we are obligated not to murder.

[@daniellinford9643]

@@Nitroade24 Right. I those two reasons are close to the one that I would give. According to the version of modified DCT Craig favors, even if there is no command not to perform an action, the action (or its consequences) could still be good or bad. But then I think that an action (or its consequences) being good is a reason in favor of doing that action, while an action (or its consequences) being bad is a reason in favor of not doing that action. In other words, the commands are just superfluous. As I said in the episode, Craig already thinks that the nature of a divine commander provides us reason to obey that commander. But if so, why couldn’t the nature of an action or of its consequences generate reason to perform or not perform that action? By the way, I don’t think I need to disprove modified DCT in order to show that the moral argument is not a good argument. It may be that modified DCT is true even if the moral argument is a bad argument. All I need to do is to show that the existence of objective moral facts, if there any, do not provide atheists good reason to accept that God exists.

[@kaizah1997]

Dan looks like a young Edward Witten

[@williammcenaney1331]

Dr. Malpass may need to learn more about divine simplicity. This means there is no difference between God and his properties. If it's true, "God's power," "God's knowledge," and "God's goodness" stand for God. Although God has no parts, we must talk like he has them. If he had parts, he would need a cause to assemble them. So maybe that's why Aristotle says God is the uncaused cause. The word "in" can confuse us because it suggests that God has parts. But Thomists say that in God, there's something like what we call "knowledge," something like what we call "power," etc. They do that because we must think analogically about God. After all, he's vastly different from us. .Simplicity means there's no difference between God and his properties. When we talk about "God's power," "God's knowledge," and "God's goodness," we're actually talking about God himself. Even though God is indivisible, we use language that suggests he has parts to help us understand him better. Thomists believe we use terms like "knowledge" and "power" to describe God because we must think analogically about him. God is vastly different from us. They also think he is the first cause, and everything that exists relies on him to continue existing and to have causal ability. Some people ask what caused God if everything has a cause. But no classical theist says that everything has a cause. God's existence is "inbuilt." So, he doesn't derive it. That's why there's no vicious infinite regress of causes. When you ask why I believe in God but not the other gods, you make a category error by lumping God together with the other deities. The Ancient Greek deities are creatures partly because they have natural parents if those deities exist. That means that you need to equivocate on "God" to talk about the Biblical God and the pagan gods. Besides, you need to equivocate on "God" to talk about God and other deities.

[@Nai61a]

william etc: You cannot make any statement about "God" without first demonstrating, with good, credible evidence that it exists. One cannot say: "the butler did it" unless and until we have a butler to scrutinise. What YOU are doing, I fear, is inventing a super-powered superhero and giving it the attributes it needs in order to be able to do/be what you want it to be able to do/be.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@Nai61a Please tell me why there's. anything at all. Don't appeal to methodological naturalism. If you do that, your argument will be circular because science presupposes that there's something instead of nothing. Don't define "nothing" a the quantum vacuum since the quantum vacuum is something. When I say "nothing," it's short for "not anything." If there were nothing, you could say paradoxically that the set of existing objects is the empty set.

[@Nai61a]

@@williammcenaney1331 Why do you assume that "nothing" is the default? It is religious type thinking that leads people to make this assumption. I have yet to hear a convincing argument to underpin it. To me, "nothing" - in the sense I think you/they mean it - is an incoherent concept. And, of course, they do not mean "nothing" because - so they assert - their "God" was there, the exception, of course, to all the rules they want to invoke to make the existence of their "God" possible. I have recently come to the conclusion that ALL "God"-existence claims are, at bottom, "God" of the gaps.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@Nai61a Why would there be nothing in my sense, the standard one? There would be nothing in that sense of the word because self-causation implies a self-contradiction. Whenever a cause produces an effect, it must come before the effect or exist with it. For something to make itself begin to exist, the cause and the effect would need to be exactly the same thing. So in that case, the cause and the effect would need to exist and not exist in the same respect at the same time. If an action's definition implies a self-contradiction, the definition doesn't describe any possible action. Besides, any object needs a cause when that object has parts since someone or something assembled it. If you don't understand my definition, you won't falsify it now. You don't understand it. So by modus ponens, you won't falsify it now. Maybe I can help you understand with a question. What were you 1,000 years before your father's sperm fertilized your mother's ovum? Wha would you have been if your parents never existed? As for the god of the gaps, maybe "God" stands for existence in itself. Suppose it does that. Then if there were no God there would be no one and no thing at all. That's why I like to tell atheists that if there were no God, there would be no fossil record gaps since the set of existing objects would be the empty set. If each person, place, and thing needs God to make it exist, there are gaps for God to fill. After all, if he exist, he's the uncaused cause. If he's the uncaused cause, his existence is built-in and underived. That's why it's misleading to ask, If everything has a cause, what caused God? No classical theist ever argued that everything has a cause.

[@Nai61a]

@@williammcenaney1331 Nobody is talking about self-causation. I asked you why you think there should be nothing rather than something. Why can "something" not be the default position? Why can the Cosmos not simply BE - eternally, uncaused, without beginning or end? I venture to suggest that you reason there is "something" because you want there to be a "cause" for this "something". For you to sustain this desire, it is necessary that "nothing" should be an option. As I said, the idea of an absolute "nothing" is not one I find coherent. "... any object needs a cause when that object has parts since someone or something assembled it." - This begs questions and assumes the conclusion. It applies satisfactorily to things which are demonstrably man-made/manufactured, but not to things which are organic and/or depend on natural forces. I am told often enough that everything has a cause, but the SAME people who tell me that, simultaneously tell me that THEY know this one, special, magical exception to the rule ... which is an exception because ... they SAY it is! "... maybe 'God' stands for existence in itself." - Indeed. Or for the universe/Cosmos. But we have words for those things. I see no need to rename them simply because people like the idea of "God". I am seeing this more and more at the moment - perhaps just a coincidence - especially from people who have come to understand that the "God" stories of our ancestors are not to be taken seriously in the modern world. There is still a desire to cling to the idea of the possibility of some kind of overseeing agent. "... he's the uncaused cause." - This is an assertion without evidence. I refer you to my previous comment. You are simply defining your superhero. He isn't ANYTHING in the real world, unless and until you have demonstrated his existence and we can scrutinise him.

[@FloydFp]

For a future topic, how about the metaphysics of abstract objects and can they be grounded in a god.

[@bengreen171]

I've often wondered where certain virtues fit into the theist's conception of morality. It seems to me that someone like Craig would assert that God is good because he instantiates all moral virtues. But I think there are virtues he cannot instantiate - bravery springs to mind as an obvious one. I don't think God can possibly be brave, since bravery is the act of defying the jeopardy of a situation. God - being all powerful and all knowing - cannot possibly ever find himself in jeopardy, and so cannot possibly be brave. A theist might respond by claiming that God would be brave if circumstances allowed it, or that he has the 'potential' to be brave - but this sounds like an abrogation of the definition of bravery to me. Bravery cannot exist without vulnerability, since the vulnerability of the brave hero is foundational to whole concept of bravery. So God cannot instantiate all moral virtues, and is therefore not 'Perfectly Good'. edit - I also wonder if this issue is a problem for theists who talk about God in terms of 'completely actual'. Even if you grant that God could be potentially brave, that automatically disproves his complete actuality.

[@PhilHalper1]

I doubt he could be charitable either , as he does not have limited resources.

[@bengreen171]

@@PhilHalper1 or a home - the place where famously, charity begins.

[@harlowcj]

Was WLC too busy to come on and defend his views? Seems cheap to essentially accuse him of knowing nothing about Western philosophy and go from there without any representation.

[@anzov1n]

I never understood the use of the word "objective" in this argument. Objective literally means independent of minds/stance etc. The first premise is trivially false if you go by WLC's definition of god, yet hes one of the people who love this formulation of the argument. On top of that, for a moral anti-realist, second premise also falls flat. And to complete the shit sandwich, once you get into the details the abrahamic god also doesnt seem to follow a consistent moral code at all, objective or otherwise. All in all, this argument just seems confoundingly bad.

[@PhilHalper1]

maybe thats why the moral argument for god is lowly ranked by philosophers.

[@dg7780]

What is the definition of morality? Is it universal or varies from society to society and country to country? Moreover, irrespective of it's universality or not, what are the activities called "Moral" and what are not?😊🙏.

[@clubadv]

23:30 bit of a misnomer as I believe the Bible is trying to say to love your neighbor as you love yourself not the way you want to be treated

[@clubadv]

Arguing against a poorly iterated moral claim isn't asking the right question even. What is the net benefit and what is the tradeoff (there is always a tradeoff) such as will you cause your neighbor to be softer, or reliant on you....

[@PhilHalper1]

what if you hate yourself as some people do?

[@sammyking9407]

Stalin had the most refined version of the moral argument.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

See my comment below. It is impossible to listen to this discussion as it makes little sense, not starting with what is basic, so it is much ado about nothing that is fundamental. Start with what is fundamental and take it from there, otherwise the discussion doesn’t make much sense. It is amazing how ungrounded and uniformed people are and scary, in view that we desperately need informed people today.

[@Petticca]

Apart from all the issues of just asserting that "moral values and duties do exist"... So, what? Every single "argument" from apologists is literally them claiming X is a thing, and then saying that thing "requires" an "explanation" and that as luck would have it, this philosopher's god of the gaps happens to "explain" it, you can tell by all the properties, traits and attributes that philosophers have authoratively asserted this god has. See? Apologists have continuously rewritten the character sheet of the philosopher's god, and shamelessly commandeered and redefined any concepts and terms from philosophy and the sciences, they see fit to crib from, in order to do so. We are still hit with the same garbage arguments, for an utterly incoherent deity concept, one that is purposefully as far removed from the source - the god of scripture, as they can define it to be. It is to the point now that they're simply coming up with more convoluted ways of defining this god completely out of -the reach of human investigation- existence, so that they may pull a comical "My god is too, real! You, uh, just don't know him... He...He lives in Canada." to handwave away the skeptic, and challenges for the apologist to come up with something other than incoherent assertions. Apologists are now and always have been just making sht up, pretending that they're bringing intellectual honesty and academically rigorous insight and knowledge to the table, because philosophical apologists have been able to abuse the subject they hold a PhD in, much like the scientifically educated liars at Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis abuse the subjects they hold a PhD in.

[@maxdoubt5219]

"Do unto other as you would have them do unto you"? Cool, I'm sending Bill Gates 10% of my money!😄No, better is, "Don't do to others that which _you_ wouldn't like."

[@matthew-xl4od]

Worry about your Own sins

[@leebennett1821]

If you need a God to be Good then you are not a Good person

[@PhilHalper1]

true but the mroal argument is saying something different.

[@micell826]

Meow face 😽

[@CMVMic]

Most theists take objective to mean that which exists independent of human minds.

[@daniellinford9643]

There are several reasons why that's a poor way to conceive of objectivity. For example, suppose that we made contact with an alien civilization. And suppose that they had their own set of ethical precepts that are radically opposed to ours. For example, the aliens might think that devouring human infants solely for fun is the most ethical thing they can do. In that case, the aliens' ethical precept is independent of human minds. Would that make it objectively correct to devour infants solely for fun? I don't think so and I'm willing to bet that theists wouldn't think so either.

[@CMVMic]

@@daniellinford9643 If there are other minds besides humans, then the minds of aliens would qualify as being objective as well. However, this doesn't mean theists dont hold this definition of objective. What you have done is made an appeal to consequences or extremes, which doesnt make something more or less true. I think simply because there may be objective morality doesnt entail one must act in accordance with it. Also, what if the theist claims there is a mind that grounds all minds and this mind would be the objective grounding of morality. How would you respond to this?

[@daniellinford9643]

@@CMVMic I'm not sure what you mean by "an appeal to consequences or extremes". A good definition is one that should work in all possible cases. So, to test a definition, we want to see whether we're still satisfied with the definition in more exotic cases. If we're not still satisfied with the definition for those cases, then we should either modify the definition or throw the definition away. That's an absolutely standard methodology in both philosophy and mathematics. You asked about a case where a theist claims that there is a mind that grounds all minds. I don't see what this would gain us. A conception like that would face all of the same objections discussed here and in the video.

[@DarwinsGreatestHits]

@@daniellinford9643 On the alien objection, I think Craig would have to say something is objective if it's independent of non-God minds.

[@dr.h8r]

But that’s essentially all this objection/conception of objectivity in this context boils down to: x is objective iff it’s independent of all non-God minds But that’s just a trivial & question-begging restatement they morality depends on Gods commands or nature. Nothing valuable is added to the dialectic.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

This discussion would make sense if they started out by defining what God is. They throw around the word God without any explanation. If the definition of God is: Consciousness, Existence, and Bliss. Our existence in God is participation in Consciousness, Existence and, unfortunately, sense perception in place of bliss. If we transcend ego consciousness then maybe we will have bliss. Morality is simply aligning with Reality, what is true, a believer or a non-believer can do that. However, if consciousness is all there is and this is God then you cannot ground morality without consciousness or, for that matter,, exist without consciousness. Animals are programmed by instincts so they do not have to be concerned about morality because it doesn’t apply, even if they, which appears to be the case have a level of consciousness, although not self-consciousness, being embedded in the environment, not separate from it as is the human ego.

[@daniellinford9643]

We were assuming a definition of 'God' standard in the philosophical literature. The definition you mention is not standard. Moreover, I see no reason why anyone would think your definition is correct.

[@starfishsystems]

​@@daniellinford9643 You are either profoundly misinformed or simply dishonest. There is no "standard definition of god" EVEN AMONG BELIEVERS, much less withing the philosophical community. No philosophers would ever agree to such an arbitrary constraint on investigation.

[@ellyam991]

​​@@starfishsystems Standard with regards to god in philosophy of religion refers to the traditional conception of god that has been discussed in western philosophy, but there are many more models you can use to describe god that some philosophers believe better fit the data. Believers not having a consensus, doesn't mean there isn't a model of god that's the main area of focus in the literature

[@gabri41200]

All this discussion about morality is trivial to me, for there is no morality.

[@kensey007]

Not even subjectively? I have opinions about what is good and what is bad. So, at a minimum, morality exists to the extent morality might be just my opinions.

[@gabri41200]

@@kensey007 define good and bad?

[@kensey007]

@@gabri41200 check a dictionary

[@gabri41200]

@kensey007 Oxford dictionary: Good: "behaviour that is morally right or acceptable". Well, that seems circular to me. If you define morality with the words good and bad, and these words are defined by morality, then this is all just meaningless to me.

[@kensey007]

@@gabri41200 All words are ultimately with circularity.

[@LuisAldamiz]

WTH? I thought this would be about why God, assuming it exists at all, is evil and allows evil (injustice, undeserved suffering) to happen. That totally disproves the idea of a good God but allows for evil or indiferent versions of God. However you're arguing about the roots of innate human ethics, which are self-evidently rooted in our social evolution (i.e. "primitive communism") and are totally unrelated to any God, Goddess or Devil you can imagine: it's just what worked well for the Paleolithic people: cooperation, freedom and honesty. Sigh!

[@daniellinford9643]

I don't see why you thought any of that. This is not a video on the problem of evil. Moreover, we were not discussing "the roots of innate human ethics". Alex and I would both deny that objective moral facts, if they exist, are grounded in our social evolution.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@daniellinford9643 - Well, "morals". I find God utterly immoral, else It would do something real for real people. If you're not discussing that nor innate ethics/morals of people, what the heck are you talking about: Moses' commandments (which I find utterly immoral at 90%). Anyway, you know the deal: Moses made them up in some sort of alleged trance with a "burning bush" (arguably an hallucinogenic one). Moses was (allegedly) a person, not a god. Nobody ever saw a god, no god ever did anything at all, humans did and then projected to an imaginary being to be sold as invisible friend for the lonely and hope after death for the hopeless and desperated.

[@FaxanaduJohn]

Skydivephil can do whatever he wants with his channel, although I find these God videos utterly vacuous next to the mind bending cosmological content this channel is known for. Anyone with half a brain worked out age 11 through sheer armchair reasoning that supernatural sky fairies almost certainly do not exist. The whole “field” is just intellectually valid and, frankly, nonsense.

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks and we will have more science content soon

[@FaxanaduJohn]

@@PhilHalper1 I didn’t mean to come across so dismissive- I’m sure there are those who need to hear these arguments. Top channel!

[@PhilHalper1]

@@FaxanaduJohn thanked

[@Nai61a]

Fax etc: I wish you were right about the obvious false nature of theistic claims. Sadly, these supernatural/superstitious beliefs still dominate our world.

[@UnveilingFaith]

As much as Phil's content is valuable on science, this new foray into some of the philosophical arguments is a good change. I know you are using it as a hyperbole but I doubt there would be very few 11 years olds who would understand contingency, KCA, Ontological and other arguments in favor of theism, let alone refute them. It would be dishonest to suggest that theists have nothing at all to work with.

[@pandora8610]

I thought for a moment at about 30:00 that you were going to get into my biggest objection to DCT, when you asked how we would know what God commands. As far as I can see, we can’t. Ever. Even in an idealised scenario where we have clear and direct instructions from a god, they’re useless to us. Let’s imagine two hypothetical gods. They’re exact opposites. Anything that one of them decides is good, the other decides is evil. God A, like many claimed gods, commands its followers to not kill, not steal, tell the truth, and not have butt sex. God B, being its opposite, commands its followers to not kill, not steal, tell the truth, and not have butt sex. Wait, what went wrong? Why are two opposite gods giving the same commands? Well, since one of the gods is opposed to murder, theft, lying and butt sex, the other one mandates them. Which one? Nobody knows, and nobody can know. It will lie to us, and by definition, it will be right to do so.

[@PhilHalper1]

Good point , thanks for the comment

[@Alexander_45]

Loving this series, keep it up!

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks